requesting google/research assistance

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #262,211 by lincoln 7/19/06 4:51:34 PM Reply	requesting google/research assistance I keep hearing about how the net growth of jobs 1992 - 2000 under Clinton was increased by 22 million, and how under Shrub it's 5 million 2000 - 2005(?), but my attempts to datamine these two facts at [link\|http://www.bls.gov\|http://www.bls.gov] have been unsuccessful, and searching Google has killed several hours without my getting any closer to proving this true or false. Has anyone seen an official government web site that proves or disproves this statement? lincoln "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem. I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *Citizen* of the United States. [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #262,217 by Another Scott 7/19/06 5:26:46 PM 7/19/06 5:37:35 PM Reply	That's ~ the numbers I've heard too. Go here to check. [link\|http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce\|BLS National Employment]. Check the first box, scroll down, hit "Retrieve Data" and use the dropdown boxes to adjust the timeframe to what you want. E.g. from Jan 1993 to Dec 2000 the total non-farm employment (seasonally adjusted) increased 22.759 M. For Jan 2001 to June 2006 (preliminary), the increase is 2.759 M. HTH. [edit:] Click the "Include Graphs New!" box for a graph of the employment numbers. The employment numbers didn't equal the Feb 2001 peak until Feb 2005. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott July 19, 2006, 05:37:35 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #262,220 by lincoln 7/19/06 5:46:34 PM Reply	Interesting Using that data, I wonder how Shrub & Co can keep sqwauking about 5 million jobs created. I don't see the numbers supporting anything other than the 2.7 million you mentioned. lincoln "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem. I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *Citizen* of the United States. [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #262,222 by Another Scott 7/19/06 5:53:05 PM Reply	5.433 M from Aug 2003 to present. They claim 5+ M new jobs since "the end of the recession" or some such. It shows up clearly in the graph. They obviously don't want to count the time since the peak and since they took office, since that's when employment numbers entered a recession. Hey, they're doing what you'd expect - trying to spin the numbers to make things look as good as possible. That's why being able to find the real numbers and extract them from the spin is important. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #262,223 by SpiceWare 7/19/06 5:58:49 PM Reply	Is that a fair comparision? Isn't employment a trailing indicator? Didn't we have a major event back around 2001 that caused employment issues - I know I lost 20% of my pay at that point and a significant number of people here lost their jobs. As such, wouldn't it make sense to let Bush finish his term and compare 1992-2000 to 2000-2008? I work for a manufacturer(yes, a manufacturer in the USA) and we've been hiring left and right and still have a number of positions open. We've added so many new people that we're about out of office space and are evaluating a 2nd production shift as we're about out of room on the production floor as well. Darrell Spice, Jr. Trendy yet complex\nPeople seek me out - though they're not sure why\n[link\|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass\|Artistic Overpass] [link\|http://www.spiceware.org/\|SpiceWare]
Post #262,225 by Another Scott 7/19/06 6:01:11 PM Reply	All's fair in politics and economics. ;-)
Post #262,230 by ben_tilly 7/19/06 6:42:25 PM Reply	9/11 was not a significant cause of job loss Not compared to the ongoing implosion in the stock market. Cheers, Ben a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing. -- Warren Buffett

requesting google/research assistance - (lincoln) - (6) - July 19, 2006, 04:51:34 PM EDT

That's ~ the numbers I've heard too. Go here to check. - (Another Scott) - (2) - July 19, 2006, 05:37:35 PM EDT

Interesting - (lincoln) - (1) - July 19, 2006, 05:46:34 PM EDT

5.433 M from Aug 2003 to present. - (Another Scott) - July 19, 2006, 05:53:05 PM EDT

Is that a fair comparision? - (SpiceWare) - (2) - July 19, 2006, 05:58:49 PM EDT

All's fair in politics and economics. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott) - July 19, 2006, 06:01:11 PM EDT

9/11 was not a significant cause of job loss - (ben_tilly) - July 19, 2006, 06:42:25 PM EDT

iwethey.org

Supercalifragilisticexshpialadocious.
49 ms